WOMEN AND THE BIBLE

[Visual C#]

---

The Bible is a mix of convoluted doctrines and stories that really don't agree with each other. It may be true on some things, but the rest is so messed up.

It'll only be a matter of TIME before we get female priests. It's never been about the Bible or Divine Revelation; it's about the environment and the current status quo. If you'll look at the history of the Roman Catholic Church, you'll see that they've changed their stance on several issues for so many times already. Human cloning, abortion, pornography. etc.. this'll all be commonplace in say a hundred years or so.

[amaw]

For me, it's a very lame excuse....if we follow that type of concept, women should never been allowed to vote, drive a plane, play boxing, and cannot even run as a president.

Only if you don't understand how faith-based religions work. Christianity claims to have absolute truths, so it must have firm basis on what it says is true. In the case of a female priesthood, the implications are far-reaching, so it only makes sense to search for a good reason to go against what has been set up and approved by Christ Himself. Jesus never approved a female priesthood, so the Church needs a good reason to do otherwise. It doesn't have any such reason now.

Historians(and even the Church) cannot find(provide) a proof that Jesus Christ never approved a female priest, so I'm not sure why, "equal opportunity on both genders" is not good enough reason for the church to change the rule..... and of course, any religous sect would claimed to have the absolute truth, or else they can't find members if they wouldn't.

OK, I apologized.... I'm just an ordinary guy reading a bible, understanding it the way how it is written. As of now, I guess I cannot really fathom the in-depth meaning of it.

A good first step is to view it in the context of how it was made. I'm not just talking about the circumstances of the individual books. More important is the AUTHORITY upon which the very concept of the Bible is based.

yeah, that's why a lot of religious denominations blossomed over the years as many are looking at the concept, yet yield so many interpretations.....

NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that Christians should put together a book and make it their sole rule of faith. It was the Catholic Church that co,piled the Bible and even wrote parts of it. The most important criterion used in determining whether a book should be part of the Bible was WHETHER IT CONFORMED TO CATHOLICDOCTRINE. That is a plain historical fact.

Therefore, the Bible can only be properly interpreted when you understand that the purpose of putting it together was to support Church doctrine. The Bible must be read as a companion to Apostolic Tradition and the teaching that derives from this Apostolic Tradition. You don't read the Bible alone. You read it along with Church doctrine..

I understand that the Catholic Church should protect itself when compiling the bible(I might do the same to protect it).

But if we are searching for the truth, can we rely the bible if it conformed to the catholic doctrine?

and why do we need to read it along with the church doctrine? does it mean a person can only be saved if s/he is a catholic?
I don't think God will agree with that.......

And another question, how come we cannot find Jesus Christ's works in the bible?

We can't? Why do you say that? Many of Christ's works are there, such as raising Lazarus, the last Supper, numerous healings, etc. What works are you referring to?

I'm referring to Jesus Christ's writings..... His own interpretations, not other party's interpretations on what He said/did.

killing over one million jews in one year(70AD).........

The Church never did that. It's a MYTH. The fall of Jerusalem... it fell to the Romans, and at the time, the Romans were also beginning to oppress the Church! Sorry, but you don't know your history.

Maybe it's myth, maybe it's not...who knows?..... All I know is I read it somewhere, and not only with one reference, but plenty....Recent studies even mentioned that Titus, the general, leading the merciless killings was even worshipped by the Christians at that time, mainly because of what he did.

I'm sure I know MY history, what I'm not sure if it's really the truth (Heck, I can't even be sure if what I learned about the crime commited by somebody in our neighborhood is really THE TRUTH.)......when I read something about history.... I'd try to digest everything, and analyze if it makes sense.....well, it makes sense to me, if those soldiers at the time are barbaric, that when they toppled those stones, edifices, buildings, they also killed all the Jews, trying to protect those buildings.....do you think it makes sense?

and how can you be sure if it's only a myth? are you sure what you learned about history is really the truth? If you do, then you are much much better than Nostradamus, Einstein, and Galileo combined......kudos and my hats off to you.

[amaw]

Amen! Its true that He is very simple. Women should be treated equally and fairly. You can`t see the wonderful and beautiful world without your mom.

That's right, and as far as Church Doctrine is concerned (as separate from private practices, etc.), they ARE. Women are not being deprived of any rights by the Church.

Ohhh NO, don't confuse people about Equality, Fairness and Church Doctrines....if the Church Doctrine is there, that doesn't mean it is treating equally and fairly. Just like a law, if the law is in place, it doesn't mean that law is fair and equal..... if there was a law that would send black people to prison if they will sit in front of the bus, that law doesn't mean it is fair and equal.

Take note, priesthood is NOT a right. It never was and never will be. It is a privileged vocation which persons are called to. No one can claim he or she has a right to be a priest. NO ONE. And since the Church is a PRIVATE institution, no one has the right to force it to ordain anyone it doesn't want to.

It's even more sickening to think that just because a person has a vagina and breasts, she can't have that privilege.....it's not her choice to be born as female, so why she should beÂ* deprived that privilege?

No one is forcing the church(as of this time, I don't think there's anybody that can force the church to do something)...we are voicing things that are not fair and equal.

Now the question is, did the Church leaders listen, RE-THINK, and do something about it?

[HoundedbyHeaven]

You keep mentioning if I really did understand the true meaning of Catholicism, yet, I doubt if you really do..... because if you do, then you would have explained in detail my questions about the the Church treatment towards women, the inconsistency about the bible.....not just keep on repeating your answer, as it would be very obvious, you\'re evading the questions....

I\'m not interested in explaining to someone who claims to be Catholic and yet obviously find the teachings of the Catholic Church revolting. But I disagree with your charge that I did not answer your questions, because I did answer your questions as I saw fit for such \"Catholics\". It\'s pretty obvious that you made it a policy to refuse to accept any explanation challenging your heretical beliefs.

Shalom.

[Cardinal Bunal]

It's even more sickening to think that just because a person has a vagina and breasts, she can't have that privilege.....it's not her choice to be born as female, so why she should beÂ* deprived that privilege?

No one is forcing the church(as of this time, I don't think there's anybody that can force the church to do something)...we are voicing things that are not fair and equal.

Now the question is, did the Church leaders listen, RE-THINK, and do something about it?

Actually, there are FEMALE ministers in the church, nuns, catechists and the like and the Roman clergy teaches EVERYONE's very Biblical role to be PPK... or PPP Priests Prophets Kings (or Princes) our roles... Prophets because we should proclaim, priests because we should also minister in every way, Kings because we already have "freedom in Christ" (it's in Colossians) or kings because we can stand up for our own rights as people who belong to the household of believers.

But the a minister who is called Priest in the Roman clergy per se is only a man because of the consecration of the host and wine teaching....

It's a debate if you believe that the Transubstantiation is accurate or a sacrilege. I choose the latter but that is another story. another debate

[diem]

@empress_of_drac, the bible is a book therefore a humanmade object-- though many would claim and be utterly convinced it was divinely inspired by the Will of God, a true matter of faith-- still it was written, interpreted, edited, and published by MEN! Â*

I see most of your scripture evidence is based on the Old Testament-- ever wonder why the Christian Bible has the Old Testament which is about Jewish history, law and lore? Â*It is because to give weight to the Savior's mission, to take away the old and bring in the new.

Please read Matthew Chapter 15, verses 1 to 9, or Mark Chapter 7 verses 1 to 13... particularly take note that Jesus quoted a prophesy from Isaiah-- Â*"These people, says God, honor me with their words but their hearts are really far away from me. Â*It is no use for them to worship me because they teach manmade rules as though they were my laws!"

Therefore, it is my belief, the only laws that could be taken as the word of God in the Christian Bible's entire Old Testament(which is comprised of 39 or so books) are the Ten Commandments!

And okay you have a note from a letter of Paul to the Corinthians, but the Apostle Paul Â*was a zealous student of Jewish patriarchal law before he turned to Christ, old habits die hard, nobody's perfect-- undoubtedly in my opinion, Paul was a chauvanist--

Please do not blame the actions of MEN on God-- "Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gawa"

And on the matter of women being priests... who in their right mind, no matter the ***, would want to be a priest or a nun?! True, they do have a pampered existence, the wealthy Church takes care of them, they work on a noble goal-- to build God's community on earth... yet it's not everybody's cup of tea--

I'm just wondering honestly why would a woman want to be a priest, and a Catholic priest at that--? Hmmm... you could do the same good works like a priest, travel around like a priest, and do the things a priest does if you were a nun save one which is to perform the sacraments which are highly tedious.

Though I was raised as a Catholic, and are inspired by several outstanding people who are priests and nuns-- I believe you don't have to join an order and wear a cassock to do good in the world or preach out God's Word. If you want to take the vows of obedience, poverty and chastity-- go ahead on your own quiet volition so that if you ever break that vow, at least there won't be any scandal!

God doesn't want robots, people, that's why He gives us free will.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

hehehe, I am so impressed how you twisted your story, after I mentioned \\\"The Fall of Jerusalem\\\", and wanted to get away with your first statement....well, cool. well, lemme see if you did your research......

Who\\\'s twisting and escaping? My criticism remains: how is the Catholic Church responsible for the \\\"Fall of Jerusalem\\\" in 70 A.D.? Who were the Catholic leaders you spoke of who played a \\\"big part\\\"? Encyclopedias clearly disagree with you! Where\\\'s your undisputed historical proof?

Jesus Christ said, somewhere in Mathew, that: No Stones left unturned..... would that mean 1 million lives were included?

My God, your knowledge of the Sacred Scripture is simply breathtaking! I\\\'m speechless.

The stones the Lord Jesus was talking about were the stones of the buildings of the Temple of Jerusalem, which are the most guarded places in all of Ancient Israel. And since you agree that the Roman army (which you hilariously claim to be all Roman Catholics) came into Jerusalem and destroyed everything, would it not make sense to you that most of the Israelites would guard the Temple buildings with their lives? Do you think that your hated \\\"Roman Catholic\\\" Roman army should just shove every Israelite guarding the Temple buildings, vacate all of its occupants and then carefully destroy every stone of the buildings, making sure there were no casualties? Do you realized how Israelites revere the Temple? Do I have to enumerate to you the countless wars Jews and Muslims waged across history for control of the Temple?

And what about three verses before that verse \\\"somewhere in Matthew\\\" you are referring to, in Matthew 23:38, where it says \\\"Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate.\\\", how do we interpret that? The Israelites are simply going to get evicted?

Not only do you fail to understand metaphor but also context.

hmmmnnn, you\\\'re trying to trick me by associating the words Roman Catholics.

What? You are the one who is associating the Roman army with Roman Catholics, and I am challenging you to prove that. And now I\\\'m tricking you because I\\\'m associating the Roman army with Roman Catholics? Duh!

OK, let\\\'s talk a little about history.....Jesus assigned Peter to the responsibility of creating a Christian Church, which Peter went to Rome and became the first pope. in 70 AD the Christian Church is lead by the Bishop of Rome, commonly known as pope, Peter\\\'s successor.... many years later a guy named Marthin Luther(not the American Black activist) questioned the church lavish lifestyles and created Protestant Church and separated ways.....

Uh-huh, and so you\\\'re claiming again that the entire Roman Empire became Roman Catholic by 70 A.D.? Again, prove it. Cite your sources.

Do you know Titus? if you don\\\'t then do some researching..... if you know, well, recent studies showed that this guy was even worshipped(not as a God, but as a saint) by Christians who look at the pope as the supreme leader, thus, eventually known as Roman Catholics.

Which Titus? You name him. And since it is you who claim that he was worshipped as a saint by the early Christians, becaused \\\"recent studies showed\\\", well please show the studies or cite your sources for these studies. Burden of proof is on you.

Pax.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Historians(and even the Church) cannot find(provide) a proof that Jesus Christ never approved a female priest, so I\\\'m not sure why, \\\"equal opportunity on both genders\\\" is not good enough reason for the church to change the rule..... and of course, any religous sect would claimed to have the absolute truth, or else they can\\\'t find members if they wouldn\\\'t.

Historians (and even the Church) cannot find (provide) a proof that Jesus Christ would approve a female priest, so I\\\'m not sure why \\\"equal opportunity on both genders\\\" is a good enough reason for the Church to change the rule-- a rule that is based on the ancient tradition of male priests of the order of Melchizedek and of Levi.

By the way, If someone did not do anything, would there be proof that he did not do anything? Yes! What would be the proof? Nothing! Surprise?! The proof is nothing because nothing proves that someone did not do anything, because the opposite of anything (or everything or something) is nothing. If the Lord Jesus Christ did not approve a female priest? What would be the proof? No female priest, of course.

I understand that the Catholic Church should protect itself when compiling the bible(I might do the same to protect it).

But if we are searching for the truth, can we rely the bible if it conformed to the catholic doctrine?

Oh, your version of the truth? Of course not. The interpretation of the Bible in conformity with Catholic doctrine would be unreliable if we are searching your version of the truth.

and why do we need to read it along with the church doctrine? does it mean a person can only be saved if s/he is a catholic?

Great leaps of logic! What about those people who died before the Bible was completed? Were they not saved because they were not Catholic? The Bible has to be read along with Church doctrine to avoid the errors which your version of the truth has committed.

I\\\'m referring to Jesus Christ\\\'s writings..... His own interpretations, not other party\\\'s interpretations on what He said/did.

Like what for example? The Gospel of Thomas? The Gospel of Q, perhaps?

Maybe it\\\'s myth, maybe it\\\'s not...who knows?..... All I know is I read it somewhere, and not only with one reference, but plenty....Recent studies even mentioned that Titus, the general, leading the merciless killings was even worshipped by the Christians at that time, mainly because of what he did.

And here I thought it was rock-solid history?

I\\\'m sure I know MY history, what I\\\'m not sure if it\\\'s really the truth (Heck, I can\\\'t even be sure if what I learned about the crime commited by somebody in our neighborhood is really THE TRUTH.)......when I read something about history.... I\\\'d try to digest everything, and analyze if it makes sense.....well, it makes sense to me, if those soldiers at the time are barbaric, that when they toppled those stones, edifices, buildings, they also killed all the Jews, trying to protect those buildings.....do you think it makes sense?

and how can you be sure if it\\\'s only a myth? are you sure what you learned about history is really the truth? If you do, then you are much much better than Nostradamus, Einstein, and Galileo combined......kudos and my hats off to you.

Not really. We read what the encyclopedias have written down. When we read anybody\'s take on history, we compare these with other studies made by other historians on the subject. We take note of the authoritative opinions of the majority of historians on such a subject. Like in medicine, the opinion of a specialist on one field of medicine has more weight than the opinion of a specialist on another field of medicine.

Pax.

[amaw]

^^^
hehehehe.....It amuses me to read all your replies......running in circles, looking for windows of opportunity to discredit somebody thus, deviating the main purpose of this thread......

and honestly, I'm kind of tired right now to dig all those things I learned, which I'm sure, after I'd show it to you, you still could find flaws, just to cover your as....... aahhh nevermind.
and besides,
"Arguing in the internet is just like joining the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still a retarded"

......so to make it very simple and clear by a yes or no question

Is the church biased against women?Â* Is the bible inconsistent?

my answer for both is a profound YES!


Have a nice day.

[mannyamador]

and honestly, I'm kind of tired right now to dig all those things I learned, which I'm sure, after I'd show it to you, you still could find flaws, just to cover your as....... aahhh nevermind.

That's a LAME excuse to cover up for the fact that you don't know your history. You make an idiotic claim that the Church played a big part in the destruction of Jerusalem but provide absolutely ZERO evidence to substantiate that abusrd claim. Now THAT is RETARDED!

Is the church biased against women? Is the bible inconsistent?my answer for both is a profound YES!

There's nothing profound in such stupidity.